DOMA - Prop 8 has been struck down

[MrsKellyPierce]

However the language they used can still be challenged. Does anyone else think that SCOTUS kind of punted on the constitutionality of equal marriage? This, although a good step forward, only will kick the ultimate issue down the road. Perry struck the appeal of the district court's ruling to the 9th Circuit based on lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court's opinion would stand...Prop 8 unconstitutional...but the SCOTUS won't discuss whether same sex marriage is a right just like other marriage...we'll see this again in a few years. unfortunately.

[MrsKellyPierce]

Also worthy of note:
Lawfully-married couples living in marriage equality states will soon have equal access to all the federal rights and benefits based on marital status. For married couples living in states without marriage equality, there is less clarity. Even with DOMA out of the way, different federal programs have different rules that determine where an agency looks to decide if a marriage is valid – either place of celebration or place of residence. Most of these rules are policies, regulations or simply practices that the Obama Administration can change through existing processes to ensure that married same-sex couples, wherever they may live, have access to the federal rights and benefits they deserve. Under the current rules and practices, a lawfully-married same-sex couple living in a state that does not recognize their marriage will have access to some federal rights and benefits, but may not have access to many others, depending on how the court rules.

HRC has raised these issues with the Administration and will be working tirelessly to see the necessary changes made so that the largest number of married same-sex couples have access to the largest number of rights and benefits under federal law. Stay tuned.

[Amy Gray]

I'm gonna to gay marry everyone on this forum! :)

Oh wait, that'd be polygamy and possibly bestiality in the case of Dino... damn, it WAS a slippery slope.

[TSPornFan]

Thanks for the update Kelly! DOMA is one of the worse things Bill Clinton was ever involved in.

[Rabbiteyes]

http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1328732222779_7272066.png

~gay marries amy <3 ~~

[TSPornFan]

It's oblivious why the Supreme Court down struck Prop 8.

Now the government will tax gay marriage licenses! Watch out gays! Uncle Sam is coming for YOU!

[maddygirl]

It's about time! Yaaay.

[G-Unit]

It's about time! Yaaay.

butt dey got rid of duh votin rights act doh

[Dino Velvet]

I'm gonna to gay marry everyone on this forum! :)

Oh wait, that'd be polygamy and possibly bestiality in the case of Dino... damn, it WAS a slippery slope.

I put the "best" in bestiality so lean over the sink so I can unleash my hog on your starfish.

[flabbybody]

However the language they used can still be challenged. Does anyone else think that SCOTUS kind of punted on the constitutionality of equal marriage? This, although a good step forward, only will kick the ultimate issue down the road. Perry struck the appeal of the district court's ruling to the 9th Circuit based on lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court's opinion would stand...Prop 8 unconstitutional...but the SCOTUS won't discuss whether same sex marriage is a right just like other marriage...we'll see this again in a few years. unfortunately.
no punt at all Kelly.
By striking down DOMA, SCOTUS said states that currently recognize gay marriage (I think there are 12 including New York) will now also be recognized by the Feds. that means being able to file joint tax returns, collecting spousal pension benefits, exemption from inheritance taxes, and many other tangible financial advantages afforded legally married couples on a federal level.
On the Cali thing, SCOTUS effectively nullified the state law prohibiting gay marriage that was passed by public referendum.

[danthepoetman]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/1044817_10151508513301275_1226929224_n.jpg

[gieric]

Well just wanted to sound off in support of a couple steps in the right direction!

[Amy Gray]

I put the "best" in bestiality so lean over the sink so I can unleash my hog on your starfish.

Heeee, can we play 'hide the truffle'?

[JenniferParisHusband]

However the language they used can still be challenged. Does anyone else think that SCOTUS kind of punted on the constitutionality of equal marriage? This, although a good step forward, only will kick the ultimate issue down the road. Perry struck the appeal of the district court's ruling to the 9th Circuit based on lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, the district court's opinion would stand...Prop 8 unconstitutional...but the SCOTUS won't discuss whether same sex marriage is a right just like other marriage...we'll see this again in a few years. unfortunately.

Well, technically yes. It wasn't so much that they punted on equal marriage, but the creation of an equal protection class. First year of law school they teach you the basic classes of race, religion, etc. It's extremely rare that they do that. A new protected class under with strict scrutiny under the law affects countless other rulings, laws and regulations. So it has to be pretty epic for it to happen. And to be honest, even with a liberal court, I don't see it ever happening for LGBT rights. Not that I don't think it would be a good thing, but I just don't see it happening. The level of discrimination isn't the same kind of thing as the African American population or Jewish communities went through. Especially now that America is more accepting of this.

That said, the argument for kicking Prop 8 back to California based on lack of standing is the only correct argument the court really could have made. Before you can determine a resolution to a claim and apply an appropriate remedy, there must be a harm suffered. No one who was bringing the suit experienced any kind of harm. Without that, it's hard to change the law to protect against the harm. (Remember, the case before the court was brought by Supporters of Prop 8, not the LGBT Population of California, who had been granted relief under the Courts prior to the Supremes getting involved.) So punt, no punt, it was really the only outcome they could deliver.

DOMA, that's another matter though. There, they could have had the best shot at creating a Federal Protected Class, and didn't. They also set up countless legal challenges with their decision. Specifically, the challenge that will most likely be brought up in relation to the parts of DOMA that are still in effect are those relating to the Full Faith & Credit Clause in Article IV. Section 1. If a marriage is legally valid in say, California, and that couple moves to some backwoods piece of crap state like Ohio (I say that as a loving resident of the state), currently under DOMA, that craptastic state doesn't need to recognize the marriage or provide benefits. But Full Faith & Credit usually ensures that a marraige between a male-female couple in one state must be recognized in another. That will be the next challenge, and the context which the challenge arrises will probably effect the outcome as well. If it's something like a state tax break, or other (hate to use the word discriminatory, but it kind of fits) benefit being denied to the couple based on same-gender marriage, it might work. But if it's something that a state could modify easily, or is repealable, probably the court will punt again. There are a few sections of DOMA still in place after the ruling, this is the main one, the one that doesn't make states enforce other states same-sex marriages in their own jurisdictions.

But as for Federal stuff, Federal Benefts and Federal recognition is now the law.

And if Jennifer would finally like to lower her standards, marry me, and move to Ohio, I'd be happy to test the legality of the Full Faith & Credit clause for everyone else. Just puttin that out there. :praying:

[Dino Velvet]

Heeee, can we play 'hide the truffle'?

We playing with turds now, Amy Gray? As long as the white stuff shoots outta my wiener there's a lotta shenanigans I might put up with. Thanks in advance.

[Ecstatic]

I'm gonna to gay marry everyone on this forum! :)

Oh wait, that'd be polygamy and possibly bestiality in the case of Dino... damn, it WAS a slippery slope.

Possibly the funniest comment I've read in ages! Great poke at the whole slippery slope concept (as well as at Dino, who wants to poke back).


no punt at all Kelly.
By striking down DOMA, SCOTUS said states that currently recognize gay marriage (I think there are 12 including New York) will now also be recognized by the Feds. that means being able to file joint tax returns, collecting spousal pension benefits, exemption from inheritance taxes, and many other tangible financial advantages afforded legally married couples on a federal level.
On the Cali thing, SCOTUS effectively nullified the state law prohibiting gay marriage that was passed by public referendum.

Nicely summed, flabbybody. And the implication--implied, but carefully left unstated--is that this effectively opens the gate for marriage equality in all states, as quite deftly pointed out by Rachel Maddow last night. It's coming; within five years at least half the states will support it, and ultimately it'll be the law of the land.

As the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared in 2003, it's not legalizing same sex marriage so much as declaring that not allowing same sex marriage is unconstitutional and therefore illegal to begin with.